MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022265942 · doi:10.1242/jeb.015941

Retinal processing and opponent mechanisms mediating ultraviolet polarization sensitivity in rainbow trout (<i>Oncorhynchus mykiss</i>)

2008· article· en· W2022265942 on OpenAlexaff
Sam Ramsden, Leslie Anderson, Martina Mussi, Maarten Kamermans, Craig W. Hawryshyn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetinalRainbow troutRetinaChromatic adaptationSpectral sensitivityBiophysicsOpticsBiologyTroutPhysicsAnatomyWavelengthFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A number of teleost fishes have photoreceptor mechanisms to detect linearly polarized light. We studied the neuronal mechanism underlying this ability. It was found that a polarized signal could be detected in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) both in the electroretinogram (ERG) and in the compound action potential (CAP) measured in the optic nerve, indicating a strong retinal contribution to the processing of polarized light. The CAP recordings showed a W-shaped sensitivity curve, with a peak at 0 degrees , 90 degrees and 180 degrees , consistent with processes for both vertical and horizontal orientation. By contrast, the ERG recordings reveal a more complex pattern. In addition to the peaks at 0 degrees , 90 degrees and 180 degrees , two additional peaks appeared at 45 degrees and 135 degrees . This result suggests a specialized contribution of the outer retina in the processing of polarized light. The spectral sensitivity of the mechanisms responsible for these intermediate peaks was studied using chromatic adaptation. Here we show that long wavelength-sensitive (LWS) cone mechanism adaptation shifted the intermediate peaks towards 90 degrees , whereas ultraviolet-sensitive (UVS) cone mechanism adaptation shifted the peaks away from 90 degrees towards either 0 degrees or 180 degrees . These results provide further confirmation that the 90 degrees peak is dominated by the LWS cone mechanism and the 0 degrees and 180 degrees peaks are dominated by the UVS cone mechanism. In addition, a pharmacological approach was used to examine the retinal neural mechanisms underlying polarization sensitivity. The effect of blocking negative feedback from horizontal cells to cones on the ERG was studied by making intraocular injections of low doses of cobalt, known to block this feedback pathway. It was found that the intermediate peaks seen in the ERG polarization sensitivity curves were eliminated after application of cobalt, suggesting that these peaks are due to outer retinal inhibition derived from feedback of horizontal cells onto cones. A simple computational model was developed to evaluate these results. The model consists of opponent and non-opponent processing elements for the two polarization detectors. This model provides a first approximation analysis suggesting that opponent processing occurs in the outer retina for polarization vision. Although it seems that polarization vision uses a slightly more complicated coding scheme than colour vision, the results presented in this paper suggest that opponent and non-opponent channels process polarization information.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.506

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BiologySame topicRetinal Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207